�One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish
fingernail." -- Rabbi Yaacov Perrin,
Feb. 27, 1994 [New York Times, Feb. 28, 1994, p. 1] [Source]
When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able
to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a
bottle." --Raphael Eitan,
New York Times, 14 April 1983. [Source]
"It is forbidden to be merciful to them. You must
send missiles to them and annihilate them. They are evil and damnable."
--Rabbi Ovadia Yosef,
head of the Israeli
Shas party, regarding "Arab
murderers and terrorists", 10 April 2001 [Source].
To summarize from
the previous part: how was it possible that a small state with no legitimate
claims to exist, no resources, low population count, and above all, surrounded
by legitimate hostile forces, could grow up so rapidly to become a
military regional power? Why did the United States and the West finance and arm
Israel? Was that because of infatuation with Israel as an idea?
There are many
reasons why the West sides with Israel, but affection toward Judaism and Jews,
or infatuation with Israel as an idea is not among them. It is a fact that most
Christian nations discriminated against peoples adhering to Judaism because of
the Christian dogma that the ancient Israelites of the Middle East (no ties to
modern Jews from all nationalities) were instrumental in the crucifixion of
In the past, the
primary reason that made Western colonialist powers endorse Israel was the view
that Israel could be a useful tool in the military control of the Arab states
on behalf of these powers. That tool would protect colonialist privileges from
Arab independence movements. The secondary reason was the influence exercised
by European, American, and Russian Zionist organizations over their respective
governments to extend aid to Israel in exchange for its services.
But with the
triumph of Zionism in the United States and the accession of Zionists to
critical policy posts in the successive American administrations, those old
relations that tied the West to Israel fell into disuse. Now, the West is the
tool of Israel and world Zionism, and the wars against Iraq and Lebanon are the
final demonstration in this sense.
In the passage from
the Western imperialist order to the Zionist-Israeli world order, one item has
never changed though, and that is, Israel�s dependency on Western financing -- especially
American financing -- to survive. It is therefore important to ask, why did the
United States finance and arm Israel? Does U.S. Zionism have any thing to do
with it? And, how does all this relate to Zarqawi and Iraq?
About financing and
arming Israel: American Jewish Zionist, Alfred F. Knopf Organski tried to
camouflage the essence of who controls the United States by calling the
American financing of the rogue Zionist state assistance. In his book: The
$36 Billion Bargain: Strategy and Politics in U.S. Assistance to Israel,
published in 1990 by Columbia University Press, Organski argued that the United
States gave all these billions of dollars to Israel because of the strategic
objectives of the United States and not because of pressure by the Israel
This is nonsense.
First, let us forget for a while about the �Lobby�! Second, why does Israel and
U.S. Zionism need an Israel Lobby in the United States if secular Jewish
Zionists and Christian Zionists are nestling in every sensitive corner and
crevice inside the Congress, the White House, the Pentagon, the media, and, the
National Security Agency? Moreover, by using the term �bargain� in his title,
Organski was actually suggesting that, since the U.S. needs Israel, it obtained
its services at a bargain price!
Beyond that, why is
Israel the U.S. choice as a strategic partner and not the treacherous Jordanian
regime, or even formidable Turkey that still resents the Arabs since they sided
with Britain against it in WW1? Further, because there is an abundance of Arab
traitors and collaborators, why did the U.S. need to spend $36 billion of our
tax money to control the Arabs if could it control them totally and absolutely
without war to serve its economic and strategic interests?
We shall explore
that next before moving to discuss the Zarqawi affair in more detail.
Why did the U.S.
need to spend $36 billion of our tax money to control the Arabs if could it
control them totally and absolutely without war to serve its economic and
is no need for an elaborate answer: Israel rules the United States via American
Zionists, and as such, it can order the U.S. to co-opt Israel as a partner and
the treasury to open its fat purse. American financing of Israel, therefore, is
not a generous assistance but a gigantic extortion by U.S. Zionists. As for the
U.S. strategic need for Israel, this is a hoax, since Israel is actually a iability
that the U.S. has to maintain, subsidize, and keep arming in order to
be useful as an interventionist tool.
Israel�s� connections to the Iraqi question, it is important to understand
first the nature of the state of Israel.
bragged about its ability to regroup peoples of diverse ethnicity but with
Judaism as a common denominator inside one state. Curiously, this regrouping is
Israel�s weakness. Because there is no dialectical relation connecting an
Ethiopian Jew to a Chinese or Ukrainian Jew; the state of Israel did not become
an open nation but a closed, self-contained society. This means two things.
One: Israel is only an economic-military enterprise that people can join or
leave. Two: Zionism transformed Palestine into a fortified island for peoples
of Jewish faith, and then detached them from surrounding realties of the Middle
East to the point that it is legitimate to ask how do Israelis view themselves:
Middle Eastern, Western European, Ashkenazi, Polish, Persian, Arab, or Slavic?
Two: because it is
an economic-military enterprise, the wars of the Zionist regime did not only
increase the people�s sense of vulnerability, but also their anger for those
who disrupt the daily management of the enterprise, meaning anti-colonialist
Arab struggle. If we add to that the acquired enmity to those who once opposed
the existence of Israel on Arab soil, the psychological conditions of the
Israelis becomes clearer. It is my opinion that Zionism had transformed normal
human beings into a hating, killing machine solely to survive as an ideology of
since Israel had consistently rejected all proposals for co-existence with Arab
states, it became a prisoner of its own Zionist ideology (starting with the
Arab Summit [1980, Morocco], Arab states offered peace in exchange for mutually
recognized borders, the return of captured Arab territory, and the resolution
of the Palestinian Question). In essence, Zionism wanted Israel to become the
synthesis of all Western social and ideological experiences; i.e., to become a
hegemonic colonial power.
Four: it negates
the existence of the Palestinians as a historical reality, but affirms its own
existence as an alternative reality. This negation has an immense consequence
on the entire Zionist psyche: the constant attempt to falsify established
historical facts to adapt them to the needs of the moment.
Five: but this distorted Zionist ideology of altering
history did not stop on the Palestinian door, but extended to the entire Arab
house. That is, Israel�s negation of the Palestinians necessarily means the
negation of the Arabs because Israel has already passed from its settler�s
experience to the status of supremacist military power. Abba Eban (Israeli
foreign minister in 1967 at the time of the Israeli aggression against Syria,
Egypt, and Jordan) had once summarized this attitude when he exhorted the Arabs
�to go back and live in their desert tents.�
Do these five traits have a common pattern? If so, how does
this pattern (the Israeli state) work?
Based on the history of Israel, it is now a fact that the
traits just mentioned are preponderant in the same measure and work jointly to
achieve a dangerous purpose. Meaning: to justify its existence, Israel wants to
see the historical milieu of the Arab and Arabized civilizations (Christian,
Muslim, Jewish, Assyrian, Coptic, etc.) destroyed and replaced by an order
based on biblical mythologies and on a past made of fiction and fables. Of
course, Jewish mythologies are only pretexts. Zionists well know that the
current Israelis have no racial, social, historical, or emotional relations
with the ancient Israelites. Imperialist colonialism or greed for a Zionist
empire is the fundamental motive that unifies, maybe all current Jewish
residents of Israel.
To conclude, Zionism since 1956 (The Suez war against Egypt)
is not the Zionism advocated by Moses Hess or Theodor Hertzel. While
19th-century Zionism deceived by creating romantic imagery on land, railroads,
and telegraphs (as imagined by Hertzel in his book: The Jewish State),
Zionism from Ben Gurion to Yehod Olmert is crude expression of fascism,
violence, and inner sense of superiority. Most importantly, once Zionism
founded Israel with direct, fundamental British management, Israel ceased to
exist as dream home for the Jews, and became an expansionist, military
Having giving an overview on Zionism as it relates to
Israel, then, what was the fixed, neurotic objective of Israel since the 1967
blitzkrieg against Egypt, Syria, and Jordan? Answer: when Israel realized it
could defeat the Arabs with donated Western weapons, the next temptation was to
subjugate them by any possible means, and that is, of course, thanks to an
unlimited supply of advanced U.S. weapon systems.
A question: why is Israel fixated with Iraq?
The answer is straightforward: to implement the strategy of
modern, neocon Zionism on regional and world levels in coordination with the
Where is the fixation then? Aside from the neurotic,
frivolous theory espoused by some Zionists that Israel has a blood feud with
Iraq because of Babylonian captivity, a solid reason exists: Iraq was not only
a nationalist, wealthy state, but was also determined to arm itself to defend
against Zionist expansionist goals. As a result, Israeli policy toward Iraq had
two aims: 1) defeat it militarily, which it did via the United States in the
Gulf War Slaughter in 1991, and 2) to see it partitioned after the U.S.
invasion and occupation in 2003.
But why does Israel want to partition Iraq? There are three
One: since Israel based its existence on monolithic
religious identity, it has to justify that racist existence by positing that
different religious or confessional groups within the same religion cannot
coexist, thus they must separate, each in its own enclave. Israel then wants to
see a Coptic state, a Christian Maronite state, an Assyrian state, a Druze
state, a Berber state, and so on. The precedent for the Israeli plan to
cantonize the Middle East began with its invasion of Lebanon in 1982 that, of
course, failed to achieve its objectives of partition.
Two: advocating the installation of a Shiite state in the
guise of the Jewish State (Israel) would greatly facilitate the secession of
the Kurdish region whose leaders are allies of the Zionist state, and have
already allowed Israel to buy land and install military bases on Iraqi-Kurdish
Three: the partition of Iraq, with the U.S. leading the
process, would then serve as a model and precedent to partition the rest of the
Arab world. The result is small Arab cantons that are easy to manage and
control by a nuclear entity positioned over 8,000 square miles of colonized
But, how can Israel partition Iraq along sectarian and
ethnic lines if it is not occupying it militarily?
We should remember two things. First, Israel is occupying
Iraq by means of the military forces of the United States. There should be no
doubt that America is Israel�s proxy in the war against and the occupation of
Iraq. Let us read a minor detail through the following sequence of facts:
American Zionist, Richard Perle,
is one of the main architects of the invasion of Iraq. But,
Perle is also the author of Clean Break
that he authored for the Likudist Israel leader Binyamin Netanyahu. In Clean
Break, Perle postulated a new Middle East where the U.S. and Israel
work to overthrow the governments of Iraq and Syria.
Perle, �Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with
Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria.
This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq -- an
important Israeli strategic objective in its own right -- as a means
of foiling Syria�s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria's
regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the
Hashemites in Iraq.� [Italics added]
in mind three things. First, neither Israel, nor Turkey, or Jordan, single
or combined, could have ever achieved Perle and Netanyahu�s strategic
objective of removing President Saddam Hussein from power. This removal
needed the work of a superpower. It took the United States 13 years of
wars, sanctions, and invasion to remove the Iraqi president. Second, while
Perle speaks of Syria�s regional ambitions, he omitted mentioning Israel�s
regional ambitions, which are the overthrow of the governments of Iraq and
Syria. Not only that, but extended that ambition to such details as to who
should rule Iraq, as if Iraq belongs to his Zionist whims -- he suggested
a dynasty of traitors and accommodators: the Hashemites. Accordingly,
U.S. invasion of Iraq is the implementation of Clean Break.
substitution, the U.S. occupation of Iraq is effectively an Israeli
occupation of the same. And,
because the Zionist establishment is the decision maker of U.S. international
and Arab policy, it follows that if megalomaniac Israel wants to partition
Iraq, then the American political system will oblige. The latest
convergence on the issue is the article written by the Democrat, Senator
Joseph Biden, Jr., and the Zionist Leslie Gelb. In it, both figures
recommended the partition of Iraq as a solution for what they called
�sectarian violence,� which, incidentally and as I mentioned earlier,
never existed in Iraq until Wolfowitz and Bush invaded it.
Based on the above, we can detect several dialectical bonds
that theoretically should lead to the partition of Iraq. What are these bonds?
Moreover, does Israel have the material means to partition Iraq? And, again,
where does Zarqawi fit in all this?
J. Sabri is an Iraqi-American antiwar activist. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org